[jboss-dev] My logging ultimatum

[David M. Lloyd]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:20:12 +0100
Adrian Brock <abrock at redhat.com> wrote:

> You still miss the point. I'm not wrong. :-)
> 
> Forcing people to use the JDK api (broken)
> because you don't like 3 jars (working)
> isn't a solution to the problem.

Sure it is, assuming that the JDK api isn't broken, or at least not
unfixably so.

> The deadlocking problems can only get worse
> in the delegating LogManager solution.
> You now have competing synchronization
> strategies, e.g. jdk and log4j

What deadlocking problems?  What strategies?  If you do a custom
LogManager, there *is* no synchronization strategy as far as I see -
you're completely in control. Has it been demonstrated that the JDK api
is broken?

> Conclusion: An unstable server is not a valid
> trade-off to fix some aethestic considersation
> about distributing a few small jars.

Sure I'll agree with that, but as far as I can see it hasn't been
demonstrated that JDK logging would make your server unstable.  Also,
calling JAR dependencies "small" and "aesthetic" is really your
opinion, not a factual contribution to the discussion.

> 
> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 08:04 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:31:52 +0100
> > Adrian Brock <abrock at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Why do we keep having this thread over and over again
> > > with ever new developer?
> > 
> > Because you're wrong? ;-)  J/K, but read on.
> > 
> > > 1) Use the jboss logger
> > > 
> > > JBoss has a very simple wrapper, as Jason and Scott explained.
> > 
> > Great.  Now my project requires the jboss wrapper.  But my project's
> > two dependencies require slf4j and log4j, making three different JARs
> > in total, just for logging. Problem solved!
> > 
> > > The logic is
> > > if (system property set)
> > >    use implementation of system property
> > > else if (log4j in classpath)
> > >    use log4j
> > > else
> > >    don't log
> > > 
> > > Advantages:
> > > * You can choose log4j, jdk logging or implement a wrapper
> > > to your own logging framework
> > 
> > This choice is purely illusion.  It seems like I have such a choice,
> > but the reality is that I'm locked in to requiring a dependency -
> > the jboss-common-logging jar.  How is this better than using slf4j?
> > 
> > On the other hand, if I use JUL then the problem is reduced - now the
> > user need only include slf4j and log4j JARs.  I think I've convinced
> > Clebert to switch to JUL for jboss-serialization (though I bet he'll
> > want to see what the outcome of this discussion is first), so that would
> > get rid of the log4j - then it's just down to slf4j in MINA, which I'm
> > currently lobbying on their mailing list.  If I succeed in my efforts,
> > the user will have *no* external logging JARs needed for MINA, JBoss
> > Serialization, *or* Remoting.
> > 
> > > * You can choose not to log at all, e.g. in a client
> > > where you don't control the logging configuration at all
> > > * It is very small
> > > 
> > > $ du -h jboss-common-logging-spi-2.0.5-SNAPSHOT.jar 
> > > 16K     jboss-common-logging-spi-2.0.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > 
> > This is good for things running within the container, but in the
> > standalone case it's no different (to the user) than if I required
> > commons-logging or slf4j myself.  Except that nobody else on the planet
> > (well, outside of JBoss) would ever depend on jboss-common-logging.
> > 
> > The fact is, zero JARs is better than one, no matter how small it is.
> > 
> > > 2) There are many thirdparty components using different logging
> > > frameworks. Even things like Hibernate and JGroups use clogging.
> > > 
> > > Unless we are going to fork them to fix the logging
> > > we're always going to have to deal with many logging frameworks.
> > > (Most of them are from Apache - let a thousand WEEDS bloom :-)
> > 
> > Gotta start somewhere.  If I can convince MINA, perhaps other Apache
> > projects will also see reason. :-)
> > 
> > Just because few people hold this viewpoint today doesn't mean that
> > more won't tomorrow.
> > 
> > > 3) JDK logging is broken/useless
> > > 
> > > There are many bugs in the JDK logging that lead to deadlocks,
> > > memory leaks or just broken behaviour, we have workarounds
> > > for some of them (as usual a spec written for JavaSE
> > > doesn't anticipate the needs of JavaEE :-)
> > > And as has been already said, there are no useful appenders.
> > > Maybe with JDK7 we can fix/mitigate these problems?
> > 
> > Waiting for JDK7 to fix anything is... well, let's not do that.  I'm
> > with Trustin on this - let's do a JBoss.org project for adding support
> > to JDK logging to make it useful.  A LogManager to delegate to popular
> > logging frameworks would be a great start - as would a collection of
> > useful appenders.  This basically makes JDK logging into a built-in
> > commons-logging of sorts - it becomes the user's choice what logging
> > backend to use.
> > 
> > It would be my hope that the log4j/logback/etc of the world would
> > integrate code to provide a LogManager of their own that would
> > intercept JDK logging and handle it properly.  I think if we initiate
> > this effort, they will follow.
> > 
> > In any case, by using JDK logging in these middle pieces, the user
> > can just include JARs for the logging backend/API that they like.  This
> > is the real crux of the whole issue.
> > 
> > > I'm sure this thread will appear again in 6 months when
> > > the next new developer joins the project. 
> > 
> > When they run into the same problem and get frustrated by the lack of a
> > good solution?  Sure.
> > 
> > > Logging always seems to be one of those flamebait topics,
> > > I don't see why, it really isn't that interesting. :-)
> > 
> > If "interesting" were the only criteria...
> > 
> > - DML
> > _______________________________________________
> > jboss-development mailing list
> > jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development